Kinsey (Part 2)
May. 3rd, 2005 04:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
franceslievensI must have stirred something on my friendslist with my previous post on Kinsey. Both ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
frenchani and candlelightfrot came with some valid remarks, chrissie_linnit was urged to give her own take on things and sister_luck will be writing up on Kinsey, taking T.C. Boyle's The Inner Circle as a starting point. (I'm very interested in that book, by the way, and might read it myself.)
Most of these remarks and commentaries point out that there is much more to Kinsey than I put into my review. I realised this when I was working on it and thought about making a follow-up, but didn't think too seriously. I'd write these things down if I found the time. It seems I'll have to write them down nonetheless. Be warned, though: I will not spare your unspoiled minds. Those that want to see the film without my interpretation in the back of their heads and without knowing some crucial information: don't read any further.
There are a number of things I wish to adress regarding Kinsey. First there's the figure of Alfred Kinsey. I've partly shown him as a hero in arms against the ignorance of the general public, but asfrenchani pointed out: in the film he's more than that. We see him as a very rigid man, putting science first and making a very strict division between his rationality and his emotions. "Marriage," he believes, "is a very deep bond between equals." His love and his deepest feelings are for his wife, all the rest is mere sex. But problems ensue amongst his co-workers as the wife of one of them wishes to leave her husband for another co-worker of Kinsey's. "You let things get out of hand," Kinsey says, "I warned you not to get mixed up in any romantic feelings." But it never is that clear-cut. "For you it's only sex," the co-worker replies, "but sex is everything."
Kinsey doesn't understand this last remark. For him it is clear-cut. There's sex and there are feelings and those shouldn't be interlaced in a circle in which exchange of partners and orgies are very common. Strangely enough it was Kinsey's puritan upbringing as son of a preacher that turned him into this strict defender of his morality. Where his father raged against immoral, openly sexual behaviour, Alfred Kinsey demands openness from his co-workers towards any form of sexuality. The son himself becomes a preacher, but of a different morality, one that favours sex, but forgets all about feelings. We see Kinsey talking about sex over dinner with his family, when his own son can't bear to hear the scientific truths anymore: one can talk too much about a topic.
Second there are the interpersonal relations in the research unit. I've already pointed out that the different partner exchanges bring tension between the men. Although Kinsey thinks it possible, you cannot rule out jealousy. He should know better, for we see how uncomfortable he himself is with the knowledge that his wife is "cheating" on him, albeit with his consent. New aditions to the team get lured in, trapped as it were in a community that interacts very differently from the mainstream society. This idea is the starting point for T.C. Boyle's novel: a person gets lured in the inner circle, goes along in the sexual adventures, but how does he get out again?
In the film we see how women in this inner circle are always a step lower on the social ladder than the men. These are of course the '40s and '50s, but one would think that Kinsey and his co-workers would pay a little more attention to their wives. Kinsey regards his wife as the best partner a man can have, but "once he has set his mind on something, no-one can stop him." Kinsey is the leader, the alpha-male who gives another man permission to sleep with his wife. Twice we see this kind of behaviour in the film. It isn't solely the wife's decision to sleep with another man. It's one man giving permission to another to sleep with his wife. Maybe that's just the mechanism of partner exchange. I don't know. But I didn't see one woman giving permission to another woman to sleep with her husband.
Finally I want to say something about the sex scenes itself. There are a couple of those and they're not boring, nor are they pornographic in nature. The filmmakers found a good way around showing the harder sex scenes by showing them as films made by Kinsey and his co-workers. The black and white, partly damaged film gives the scenes an erotic nature they wouldn't have if they were in full colour. Then it would feel for me like watching porn. The amateurism of the black and white film left a lot to my imagination.
frenchani and candlelightfrot came with some valid remarks, chrissie_linnit was urged to give her own take on things and sister_luck will be writing up on Kinsey, taking T.C. Boyle's The Inner Circle as a starting point. (I'm very interested in that book, by the way, and might read it myself.)Most of these remarks and commentaries point out that there is much more to Kinsey than I put into my review. I realised this when I was working on it and thought about making a follow-up, but didn't think too seriously. I'd write these things down if I found the time. It seems I'll have to write them down nonetheless. Be warned, though: I will not spare your unspoiled minds. Those that want to see the film without my interpretation in the back of their heads and without knowing some crucial information: don't read any further.
There are a number of things I wish to adress regarding Kinsey. First there's the figure of Alfred Kinsey. I've partly shown him as a hero in arms against the ignorance of the general public, but as
frenchani pointed out: in the film he's more than that. We see him as a very rigid man, putting science first and making a very strict division between his rationality and his emotions. "Marriage," he believes, "is a very deep bond between equals." His love and his deepest feelings are for his wife, all the rest is mere sex. But problems ensue amongst his co-workers as the wife of one of them wishes to leave her husband for another co-worker of Kinsey's. "You let things get out of hand," Kinsey says, "I warned you not to get mixed up in any romantic feelings." But it never is that clear-cut. "For you it's only sex," the co-worker replies, "but sex is everything."Kinsey doesn't understand this last remark. For him it is clear-cut. There's sex and there are feelings and those shouldn't be interlaced in a circle in which exchange of partners and orgies are very common. Strangely enough it was Kinsey's puritan upbringing as son of a preacher that turned him into this strict defender of his morality. Where his father raged against immoral, openly sexual behaviour, Alfred Kinsey demands openness from his co-workers towards any form of sexuality. The son himself becomes a preacher, but of a different morality, one that favours sex, but forgets all about feelings. We see Kinsey talking about sex over dinner with his family, when his own son can't bear to hear the scientific truths anymore: one can talk too much about a topic.
Second there are the interpersonal relations in the research unit. I've already pointed out that the different partner exchanges bring tension between the men. Although Kinsey thinks it possible, you cannot rule out jealousy. He should know better, for we see how uncomfortable he himself is with the knowledge that his wife is "cheating" on him, albeit with his consent. New aditions to the team get lured in, trapped as it were in a community that interacts very differently from the mainstream society. This idea is the starting point for T.C. Boyle's novel: a person gets lured in the inner circle, goes along in the sexual adventures, but how does he get out again?
In the film we see how women in this inner circle are always a step lower on the social ladder than the men. These are of course the '40s and '50s, but one would think that Kinsey and his co-workers would pay a little more attention to their wives. Kinsey regards his wife as the best partner a man can have, but "once he has set his mind on something, no-one can stop him." Kinsey is the leader, the alpha-male who gives another man permission to sleep with his wife. Twice we see this kind of behaviour in the film. It isn't solely the wife's decision to sleep with another man. It's one man giving permission to another to sleep with his wife. Maybe that's just the mechanism of partner exchange. I don't know. But I didn't see one woman giving permission to another woman to sleep with her husband.
Finally I want to say something about the sex scenes itself. There are a couple of those and they're not boring, nor are they pornographic in nature. The filmmakers found a good way around showing the harder sex scenes by showing them as films made by Kinsey and his co-workers. The black and white, partly damaged film gives the scenes an erotic nature they wouldn't have if they were in full colour. Then it would feel for me like watching porn. The amateurism of the black and white film left a lot to my imagination.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 09:26 am (UTC)This scene is quite important IMO. Kinsey is almost about to poll his own daughters then...Talking sex "in theory" is good, it has to be a topic between parents and children but I've always thought that sharing details of your intimate life is a mistake. Both side must stay in denial...children keep thinking that their parents don't have a sexual life and parents keep believing that their children are neverending virgins!
BTW Kinsey's wife lies in that scene, and she understands the son...She knows how to behave as a mother while Kinsey does not.
In the film we see how women in this inner circle are always a step lower an the social ladder than the men. These are of course the '40s and '50s, but one would think that Kinsey and his co-workers would pay a little more attention to their wives. Kinsey regards his wife as the best partner a man can have, but "once he has set his mind on something, no-one can stop him." Kinsey is the leader, the alpha-male who gives another man permission to sleep with his wife. Twice we see this kind of behaviour in the film. It isn't solely the wife's decision to sleep with another man.
That's a very good point. Those men are, as daring as they could be, were nothing but the product of their times!
Finally I want to say something about the sex scenes itself. There are a couple of those and they're not boring, nor are they pornographic in nature. The filmmakers found a good way around showing the harder sex scenes by showing them as films made by Kinsey and his co-workers. The black and white, partly damaged film gives the scenes an erotic nature they wouldn't have if they were in full colour. Then it would feel for me like watching porn. The amateurism of the black and white film left a lot to my imagination.
Well the director obviously played with censorship and cheated. Kuddos! He even managed to show a cock at the entrance of a vagina! The reactions of Kinsey's students were quite funny btw...
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 11:49 am (UTC)But I agree with you it's a pivotal scene. We see there that Kinsey is completely obsessed with his work and that it disrupts his family life, like the obsession of his father with the puritan morality disrupted his family. Kinsey doesn't know how to be a father, what it means to be one. Like he didn't know how to be a husband and gets angry when Mac doesn't accept his proposal immediately. He was childish then!
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 11:53 am (UTC)You're right. He doesn't know to be a husband either and the scene you mentioned is pretty relevant.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 11:05 am (UTC)Was Kinseys 'research' and lifestyle choice, for a chice he indeed made when he chose to treat his family as part of his experiential research, done without full consideration and understanding of moral development and emotional stability?
Yet more to incorporate into my musings...
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 11:52 am (UTC)I think Kinsey presumed too much with others. His emotional stability wasn't the emotional stability of common people. His stabilty came from a constant focus on science. His emotions become science! But this dichotomy doesn't work. There is no division between reason and emotion.
I don't how I would incorporate Kohlberg in this. That's something for tomorrow.